Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

In a new piece by SI’s Ian Thomsen, Larry Bird says a lot of stuff we have heard before. He restates that the his contract (along with that of GM David Morway and all the coaches, the scouts and even the trainers), is up after this year. And he notes that most of the veteran players are also on expiring contracts and probably will not be back next fall.

We have heard all this, although the last seven words in the following quote do make this sound like a more definitive statement about owner Herb Simon’s mentality than previous, more ambiguous insights into Larry’s expectations for next season.

“Everybody on the basketball side is up except for a few players,” Bird said of the Pacers’ contracts that will expire this summer. “All of the trainers, coaches, scouts, me, [GM David] Morway, everybody in the office — we’re all up. As much money as we’ve lost at this franchise, the owner should have the opportunity to pick and choose who he wants to run the basketball side or coach the teams, and he’s probably going to make some changes.

But that presumption aside (one that, to me anyway, makes it sounds like at least Morway won’t be back), he is just saying that the team has a ton of flexibility.

“After this season you get to start with a clean slate, and how many teams in the league do that or ever have done that? I’m proud of the fact he’s got options, because he never had that before.”

Since this is nothing new, I’m burying the lede, which is a another pretty definitive, unambiguous statement that this team is not trading Danny Granger.

In an era defined by the departures of LeBron James and Chris Bosh (with reports that Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul are soon to follow), the Pacers are built around a young star who has been adamant in wanting to stay in Indianapolis. Bird doesn’t take Granger’s loyalty for granted.

“There are rumblings the Pacers might trade him,” Bird said of Granger. “He’s been a trooper, and I’d rather bring people in here to help him out rather than to trade him. I sat him down and told him what we were going to do three years ago, and he was all in. He gets frustrated, but that’s all.

“The thing is, if he ever came to me and asked me if I would trade him, that’s different. But Danny has never done that.”

I’m not sure you can make it much clearer than that.

The rationale behind this is something that many people who follow the NBA, but not the Pacers, don’t understand. Why wouldn’t you trade Granger for young assets and draft picks and then use some of your cap space on similarly promising guys and start an earnest rebuild around guys who are not nearly 28-years-old and don’t make $11-12 million per year?

I totally get why people would think that way.

Dump the vets and hopefully you become the Thunder. Or maybe you don’t catch that type of lightning in a bottle, but you can at least become something like the Clippers or the Kings and have a few exciting, young, uber-talented players to build around. That’s a base that could theoretically lead to a championship.

But thinking that the Pacers would do that probably means your don’t understand the how fragile this franchise is right now.

It may be easy to forget for national analysts, but this team is still far from recovered from the Jail Pacers era and, part and parcel to that, the Malice at the Palace. People in Indiana are by and large still not interested in this team and they do not go to the games. And it’s not only because the on-court product is mediocre. The franchise remains in a the midst of a lengthy reputation rehabilitation and there is little aside from time or a 55-win season (or maybe Blake Griffin in blue and gold) that is going to change that within the next 12 months. Or even the next 24.

It’s one thing to have a disillusioned, disinterested fan base. The Knicks went through that for years. But it’s altogether another thing when the franchise has also been hemorrhaging millions of dollars for a decade. The financial position of Pacers is still murky at best and deeply troubling at worst. And as we just saw with the Hornets, the market for teams in less-than-appealing locations (from a business perspective … nothing against Indianapolis … it’s a lovely place) is uncertain at best.

So for this franchise, with this fan base and these financial reports, bottoming out and having a few seasons of sub-25 wins is just not prudent from a management perspective. What if that doesn’t work out? What happens when people care about this team even less? What is below irrelevance? Kansas City? Seattle?

I have to think that Herb Simon wants to make sure that this team is on a more sound foundation, both on the court and in terms of finances, in a few years than it is right now. That has to be his concern above all else. He isn’t getting any younger (he’s 76), and the rise of this franchise during the 1990s is something that I believe he takes great pride in. He wants to be a good steward for professional basketball in Indiana as it enters the post-Herb and Mel Simon era. He won’t be here forever, but he wants the team to be.

To roll the dice now and hope to get a guy like Tyreke Evans, and then hope that a promising first year by that like-Tyreke guy doesn’t revert to futility the following season (*cough* the 2010-11 Kings *cough*), just doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is a huge risk with an unthinkable downside. There is now finally some stability at the end of the tunnel after six or seven years of hell/purgatory. Now, the Pacers look to be well-positioned to take a relatively young nucleus, add a few pieces and come out on the other end with a solid team. Not a great team mind you, but a solid one.

This mentality oozes from Larry Bird’s comments above.

And with such an plan, it isn’t hard to see them following the path of the Atlanta Hawks. You get one guy similar to Joe Johnson through free agency, hope to trade for a guy like Jamal Crawford and you put them in a rotation with Granger, Roy Hibbert, Darren Collison, Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough and hopefully one or two other consistent contributors. In the past threes seasons, with a roster of players who have grown increasingly cohesive and individually experienced, the Hawks have won 37, 47 and 53 games. The Pacers could quite possibly achieve something similar.

But, detractors would argue, Atlanta has also flamed out in the second round of the playoffs the past two years. Thus, following that type of path seems nonsensical to many NBA followers who view the association in a “title or bust” perspective. The Hawks are now the fifth best team in the East with seemingly no hope of becoming better than the Heat, the Magic or the Bulls in the next few years. Why would any team want to follow that path?

Because it makes sense for the Indiana Pacers.

In Atlanta, there is still little excitement about a 53-win team. But Simon and Bird, I think, believe that there would a professional basketball revival in Indiana if they could put a hard-working team on the court that competed every night. And I agree with that. Like in the 1990s, I think this state would get behind a squad that, even if flawed, is exciting and can beat any team on any night.

The goal, if not winning a title, is to rebuild the franchise — and not just in the sense of gambling to hopefully get some good players, but in terms of again making the Pacers something that Hoosiers want to care about. Relevance first. Trying to build a true contender second. And who knows, maybe if all the chips land perfectly somehow in stage one, you have put an ensemble cast of good-not-great players that become some facsimile of what the 2002-2008 Pistons were.

And with Granger being one of the few things that any fans have been able to care about in the past few years, the road to truly rebuilding the franchise, on the court and in the world of local public opinion, does not include trading Danny. He is the face of the franchise and trying to re-brand the team around Roy Hibbert or Darren Collison or Paul George right now would be a hard sell to anyone but the most diehard Pacers fans (of which there are roughly 500 left tops).

There is one other key comment from Larry Bird in this SI piece that should further solidify the fact that the Pacers are committed to a slow rebuild around a group of guys that the team believes can become a cohesive nucleus for success.

Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

“We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”

And when he says “you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose,” I think that’s a message that this franchise is currently unwilling to send to its fan base. That message would be the subtext of any deal including Danny Granger.

I think count got everything correct here in my opinion. Granger is too versatile to just be traded away so that we are the next Sacramento Kings for the next decade.

Yeah, unless a deal that is ridiculous comes up (like Favors, Batum and Wes etc.), there's no way Danny is traded. We don't want to become the Warriors or the Kings.. As long as we get a wing like Iggy/Crawford/Martin, a power forward like West/Nene/Landry, a very good third big, and a good defensive backup point guard, we'll start making huge strides.

Honestly, I don't care if they're in the Miami/Magic/Boston/Lakers category right now, or even in two years.

Here in the near future, 4-5 years, all those teams will be on the decline and that will leave space for new teams to come to the top. Boston will have their guys retire, LA will start getting older, and I doubt the Magic/Heat will have the ability to keep everyone happy/healthy for an extended run.

The good thing about the NBA, or professional sports in general, is that every good franchise that seems out of touch come back down to Earth relatively quickly. If you build for the future, weather the storm, and draft correctly teams always have the ability to work their way into the top standings.

Give the young guys so time to mature, and hope you can get a few more pieces, and they should be able to compete with the top teams in 3-4 years. They're plenty young to give them time.

If Paul George can become what I think he will be (I've watched him for almost two years), we will be more than fine. We have (In my opinion of course) when they hit their primes:

-Granger, who is a fringe All-Star, and when he hits his prime he will start to play defense

-Hibbert, a Rik Smits with better rebounding clone whenever he gets his full confidence back

-Collison, a fringe All-Star who can have huge assist games whenever we get shooters around him and a good power forward

-George, who can definitely be a 1st all- NBA team type of guy if he doesn't take his career for granted (KD and Lebron will always be in his way though).. Tracy McGrady with a better jumpshot. He can be averaging 15 points already if he got the playing time and he hasn't even figured it out yet.

-Lance, who if he can stay out of trouble, can be a very good scorer off the bench.

Honestly, I don't care if they're in the Miami/Magic/Boston/Lakers category right now, or even in two years.

Here in the near future, 4-5 years, all those teams will be on the decline and that will leave space for new teams to come to the top. Boston will have their guys retire, LA will start getting older, and I doubt the Magic/Heat will have the ability to keep everyone happy/healthy for an extended run.

The good thing about the NBA, or professional sports in general, is that every good franchise that seems out of touch come back down to Earth relatively quickly. If you build for the future, weather the storm, and draft correctly teams always have the ability to work their way into the top standings.

Give the young guys so time to mature, and hope you can get a few more pieces, and they should be able to compete with the top teams in 3-4 years. They're plenty young to give them time.

That's the key. Those top teams will, in the long run, always be top teams. The Lakers and Celtics have been the best franchise's since Dr. Naismith thought up the game, and that'll continue. But, in those little gaps between dynasties, other teams get a chance. Utah got their chance at the same time (a smaller franchise compared to BOS or LA) Chicago got theirs. Detroit and San Antonio got their runs in. And those teams got there by formulating a plan, holding a roster together, and maintaining as much consistency as they could. Sloan, Popovich, and Jackson are the definition of consistency.

The Pacers, with Bird at the helm, have had a few years of turnover, but have managed to establish a core that's been together through it, and will stay together for the long haul. The coaching situation needs to be cemented, obviously, but the point remains: these players are growing, they're steady, they know and like each other, and over the next few years they will learn and improve, and maybe catch that little gap between dynasties where they can challenge for a title.

Not trying to be rude, but what would you have done had you been Donnie/Bird after the brawl?

I'm not going to lie, but my cynical self would have tried to keep it together.

I understood keeping that team together for the 2005 (next) season. However once Artest asked out of town, it was very clearly time to try and rebuild. At THAT time you could have gotten top value for JO, SJax, Tinsley and still gotten some value for Artest, Pollard, and Jeff Foster.

Unfortunately we have had a terrible pattern of holding onto assets until they are in the tank.

Now apparently that pattern is putting this franchise's future in Indy into some level of doubt?

Not trying to be rude, but what would you have done had you been Donnie/Bird after the brawl?

I'm not going to lie, but my cynical self would have tried to keep it together.

And to expound on this. The MAJOR issue I have with Birds quote was this part.

Quote:
Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

“We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”

THAT ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES ME AS A PACERS FAN

Larry SHOULD be wise enough to realize the way the NBA is structured and the easiest, and most effective way to rebuild this roster. If Larry felt he was above doing it the correct way. He should have never taken this GM job in the first place.

All goes back to my point of him not having the Front Office Mind or Skill set. Its the same as asking Peyton Manning if he should punt on 4 and 15 from his own 20 yard line. At some point the adults have to make the decision for the better good of the franchise as a whole. And not the ego of a former star player/ Local Celebrity.

And to expound on this. The MAJOR issue I have with Birds quote was this part.

Quote:
Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

“We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”

THAT ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES ME AS A PACERS FAN

Larry SHOULD be wise enough to realize the way the NBA is structured and the easiest, and most effective way to rebuild this roster. If Larry felt he was above doing it the correct way. He should have never taken this GM job in the first place.

All goes back to my point of him not having the Front Office Mind or Skill set. Its the same as asking Peyton Manning if he should punt on 4 and 15 from his own 20 yard line. At some point the adults have to make the decision for the better good of the franchise as a whole. And not the ego of a former star player/ Local Celebrity.

I think count got everything correct here in my opinion. Granger is too versatile to just be traded away so that we are the next Sacramento Kings for the next decade.

very well written post. Granger is a proven commodity and trading for unknown is high risk/reward. it was reported recently Bird would consider dealing Granger for two starters, but would prefer to keep DG.

i respect Grangers loyalty to the pacers, he stuck it out with JOb. many good points in your post.

And to expound on this. The MAJOR issue I have with Birds quote was this part.

Quote:
Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

“We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”

THAT ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES ME AS A PACERS FAN

Larry SHOULD be wise enough to realize the way the NBA is structured and the easiest, and most effective way to rebuild this roster. If Larry felt he was above doing it the correct way. He should have never taken this GM job in the first place.

All goes back to my point of him not having the Front Office Mind or Skill set. Its the same as asking Peyton Manning if he should punt on 4 and 15 from his own 20 yard line. At some point the adults have to make the decision for the better good of the franchise as a whole. And not the ego of a former star player/ Local Celebrity.

...and I'm sure there are alot of posters who agree with you.

However, I happen to agree with Larry and his "winning" philosophy.

NOTHING WOULD INFURIATE ME MORE AS A PACERS FAN...

than paying good money to take my family to a basketball game, to watch my favorite team lose on purpose, so they could get the opportunity to maybe come away with a better draft pick.

than paying good money to take my family to a basketball game, to watch my favorite team lose on purpose, so they could get the opportunity to maybe come away with a better draft pick.

I'm not even saying to flat out tank. We could have earnestly bottomed out the roster. We could have not drafted 4 year college role players. D-Leaguers over multi-year deals for D/S Jones and Travis Diener. Not bringing in Watson and Jack.

It's been half assed playoff runs instead of building a real talent foundation.

I'm not even saying to flat out tank. We could have earnestly bottomed out the roster. We could have not drafted 4 year college role players. D-Leaguers over multi-year deals for D/S Jones and Travis Diener. Not bringing in Watson and Jack.

It's been half assed playoff runs instead of building a real talent foundation.

Now were supposed to believe it was all some grand plan?

I'm calling Shenanigans

I do respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. It maybe the difference in our view of what is a succesful season. I hate the declining years, but I relish the building of a team with draft picks and solid decision making where we grow each year. I every bit enjoy a season where we beat out the predictions of the experts. Even if that means we're only playing .500 ball but, that's better than what anyone thought we would achieve. Sure I want to win a championship, but it's not the end all be all for me.

I understood keeping that team together for the 2005 (next) season. However once Artest asked out of town, it was very clearly time to try and rebuild. At THAT time you could have gotten top value for JO, SJax, Tinsley and still gotten some value for Artest, Pollard, and Jeff Foster.

Unfortunately we have had a terrible pattern of holding onto assets until they are in the tank.

Now apparently that pattern is putting this franchise's future in Indy into some level of doubt?

This is a bit short sighted. You don't blow up a team in its prime designed to compete for championships because the one loose cannon wanted out. JO was still a really good player at the time. Jax was a really good player. Heck at that time everyone 1-5 on that team was a really good player. Why would you break it up because the SF who you knew had a screw loose finally imploded? The real kicker was that our organization did not understand our players that well, because Artest later wanted to recant his trade request but could not bring himself to tell Larry and Donnie.

If anything the mistake was made when Larry and Donnie let Sacto fleece us with Peja. That trade was terrible, but atleast it was an expiring deal. But the real problem was that Artest's contract wasn't that bad! Heck I believe Tinsley had a worse contract when all said and done.

I'm not even saying to flat out tank. We could have earnestly bottomed out the roster. We could have not drafted 4 year college role players. D-Leaguers over multi-year deals for D/S Jones and Travis Diener. Not bringing in Watson and Jack.

It's been half assed playoff runs instead of building a real talent foundation.

Now were supposed to believe it was all some grand plan?

I'm calling Shenanigans

Your frustrations are understood. Hey Im pretty sure we all wanted the front office to swing for the fences, but sometimes that could land you in a worse position than your currently in.

Really, none of us are happy about signing Dahntay, Solo and Diener. But as it stands, we dont have anyone on the roster who will financially hamper the franchise in the future.

By drafting "NBA Ready" players and not "boom or bust guys" you create a solid foundation. Personally Im satisfied with what has been accomplished in the draft because now you know what you have/dont have with little risk involved. If any one of the players of our "core" doesnt pan out, it wont set the franchise back.

Were in a good position to succeed this year and beyond. There's plenty room on the wagon for ya.

I understood keeping that team together for the 2005 (next) season. However once Artest asked out of town, it was very clearly time to try and rebuild. At THAT time you could have gotten top value for JO, SJax, Tinsley and still gotten some value for Artest, Pollard, and Jeff Foster.

Unfortunately we have had a terrible pattern of holding onto assets until they are in the tank.

Now apparently that pattern is putting this franchise's future in Indy into some level of doubt?

I think you keep forgetting about a guy named Donnie Walsh. Look up our 2005-06 team and 2006-07 team.... that was all Larry wasn't it. Top value for SJax and Tinsley? After the brawl? Some value for Artest? After the brawl? And Pollard? After not being good? Trading Foster? Ha.

I think you keep forgetting about a guy named Donnie Walsh. Look up our 2005-06 team and 2006-07 team.... that was all Larry wasn't it. Top value for SJax and Tinsley? After the brawl? Some value for Artest? After the brawl? And Pollard? After not being good? Trading Foster? Ha. You're a genius. Please be our GM and/or President of Basketball Operations. Seriously... you're the smartest person I've ever read. Can I marry you?

Yes after the Brawl.

The Brawl is a total cop out. We still finished with a decent playoff seed and made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs WITHOUT Ron Artest that season. We were picked top 2-3 in the East by nearly every publication that following year.

However Artest was arguably the best player on that team. Once he wanted out, it was time to think about selling high. SJax,Tinsley,JO,Foster, Pollard and Anthony Johnson all still had some level of trade value at that time.